There are two forms of the question "Why?"A) "Why, for what purpose?"B) "Why, by what cause?"

So far it seems that this thread concerns itself with the second of those.

But the word "cause" also has two forms;A) "What brought about this effect?"B) "What reasoning is behind this fact?"

The mere declaration that something is an effect directly infers (conceptually requires) that it has a cause separate from itself. Without any separation in either time or concept between cause and effect, there can be no distinction between them and thus they are one and the same. If they are actually the same thing in concept and also in time, then what has been referred to as two things, was really only one, a tricky form of equivocation has occurred within the mind. Thus the entire issue of "Causa Sui" can only rationally be referring to (B), "What reasoning is behind this fact?"

So to understand the "Why, by what reasoning/cause?" issue involved in the concept of Causa Sui, simply ask yourself the following question and in your attempt to answer it, do not depend on the truth of the implied premise in any way whatsoever;

"Why (by what reasoning/cause) is anything whatever it is?

Remember it isn't asking of what timely process brought about an end result, but rather "what is the logic behind the fact". Examine your answer very carefully so as to remove any presumption you might have inadvertently made that whatever you mentioned in your answer is actually whatever it actually is. In other words, consider that whatever you have mentioned within your answer, ISN'T whatever it actually is.

There is no reasoning before the fact that whatever the state is, is whatever the state is.It has been called the "First Cause"."Whatever is, is whatever is""I am that which is""I am that I am"In ancient Hebrew, they are all written the exact same way and all mean the same thing.

Of course, Liz seems to have been pondering how it is that a physical thing can pop out of nothingness without a reason/cause. It can't. It doesn't. It hasn't. It won't. There is a reason behind everything except for the very First Reason which is that Reality is what we are talking about and Reality is Reality. There is no reasoning behind why reality is reality rather than non-reality any more than why two is two and not five.

"It is true, beCAUSE it is what true is." ≡ Causa Sui."It is the reason, beCAUSE it is what reason is." ≡ Causa Sui."It is whatever it is, beCAUSE it is whatever it is, is." ≡ Causa Sui."I am that I am." ≡ Causa Sui.

{also known as "True by Definition"}

Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic HarmonyElseFrom THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Gain is obtained by giving a lot and keeping a little.Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is"..

James S Saint wrote:The mere declaration that something is an effect directly infers (conceptually requires) that it has a cause separate from itself. Without any separation in either time or concept between cause and effect, there can be no distinction between them and thus they are one and the same. If they are actually the same thing in concept and also in time, then what has been referred to as two things, was really only one, a tricky form of equivocation has occurred within the mind. Thus the entire issue of "Causa Sui" can only rationally be referring to (B), "What reasoning is behind this fact?"

Outstanding, James. You've arrived at the logical core that underlies all scientific comprehension.

You know my answer to your questioning: the logic of valuing. That is: the fact that for there to be interaction (causation, reality), there must be valuing, and for there to be (the terms required for) valuing, there must be a holding-oneself-as-value, which I call self-valuing.

Incidentally, the meaning "value" is the root of all logic, so it speaks to reason that anything representing a primordial logic must come in the form of a logic of value. That value must be the product of valuing has been overlooked by logicians, and discovered by philosophers. That valuing must be based on a standard has been overlooked by philosophers. This self-setting standard is the first and only properly metaphysical "law", the logical cause you speak of, the why. Causation is the reality, nature, following from this logical ground -- the physical law is (logically to be taken as) secondary to the logical one.

What we have brought to light here is the ground of the mind, which is ground to any phenomenon we may comprehend as fundamental to our world.

"The strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must."- Thucydides

Fixed Cross wrote:You know my answer to your questioning: the logic of valuing. That is: the fact that for there to be interaction (causation, reality), there must be valuing, and for there to be (the terms required for) valuing, there must be a holding-oneself-as-value, which I call self-valuing.

Incidentally, the meaning "value" is the root of all logic, so it speaks to reason that anything representing a primordial logic must come in the form of a logic of value. That value must be the product of valuing has been overlooked by logicians, and discovered by philosophers. That valuing must be based on a standard has been overlooked by philosophers. This self-setting standard is the first and only properly metaphysical "law", the logical cause you speak of, the why. Causation is the reality, nature, following from this logical ground -- the physical law is (logically to be taken as) secondary to the logical one.

What we have brought to light here is the ground of the mind, which is ground to any phenomenon we may comprehend as fundamental to our world.

Sounds like a clip from a conversation between Jesus and Gautama.

..and yes, "Causa Sui" is the ground floor, nowhere to go from there but up or to Hell.

Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic HarmonyElseFrom THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Gain is obtained by giving a lot and keeping a little.Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is"..

Congradulations James, you said HALF of what I said in my post, and dropped the ball on the rest.

Sua Sponte is the motto of the US Army Rangers, meaning 'Of Their Own Accord'. It subsumes a conscious element breaking down subjective standings, and self determination to carry through against friction and the fog of war to arrive in a possition to overcome and asymetrically advance forward, resulting in a positively accepted scenerio.

Your varients upon the meaning of 'why' doesn't begin to cover the why of a dumb grunt in the woodline, who doesnt much care about the purpose of what he's observing..... As hes calling in a napalm strike on it and such quizzical meanderings isn't his strong suit, nor does he much care about the cause of this formation hes about to kill off, as the cause is about to go up into flames along with the purpose. These are philosophical issues for someone else to ponder. The why that brought him here, to this woodline, predicated with how and intent, and neither fully met in the middle..... unless you consider the napalm strike the junction.

Now, the boy is quite intelligent, he can follow causality like anyone else, but its all in schemas handed down to him via SOPs and commands, with a million and one feedback loops via the chain of command. He folliws causality, being a excellent tracker and scout, and his views are more authoritive on the ground than the chain of commands.

There is a seregation of responsibilities, a splitting of the ego. Your two why's exist in all probility within that range, likely on the backside of a feedback loop on the otherside of the radio where he can't hear it, but can react to it.

In the end, he has the best and yet very limited understanding of the events going on around him. Others have better in particulars, but all focus of being is on that grunt out in the fields. There is a wide diaspora of why's in effect, but only on reality to all the observers.

Its asumed we have that original cause, or not a original cause..... Which either way confuses the fuck out of everyone. The solution is obvious, we're projecting a element of our own mentality as part of our objective search. Its wrong to assume the problem is grammatical.... As James blundered and Nietzsche would have us believe, or all visual and probibility. This isn't a left brain vs right brain issue, but rather how our mucrotubing is set up by default to process information. Our neurological syntax pushes us, the economy of our body maintains us, the acceptance of the mind accepts this. We've built AIs that operate differently than us, some processing the last information seen first, and vice versa. We are a knotty bowl of noodles in processing some things one way, other things another, synchronizing hand eye movements with forsight, tactile sensation with the feeling of euphoria or music. Somethings come quicker than others. Physics the slowest. We idealize far too much, we assume because the culture underlining science or the forms of a sound, educated hypothosis will progressively lead us to the truth. It must be remembered the conditions this methodology to the methodology was enacted, and that the scope may not necessarily maintain itself as the psycholigical functions and puzzling paradoxes we apply increasingly tie us down to more productive and yet increasingly malfunctioning and incoherent assumptions. We've hit a point where we can't reason most of what we assume what we know without advanced complicated and time assuming degrees and years of competent research in a field and then rrlated fields..... We makes great and bold assumptiions.... our scientific method..... good at encouraging the development of technics and lingo, produces both..... the first sells irself through stumping via the other, the other legitimizes itself through the sales of the first..... but in the end we find ourselves having to explain the ego in the lingo, and we all too often fall well short, explaining our own ego and assumptions and our miracle ignorance that defied all odds and survived our PHD Thesis, and years of reasearch, in making monkey like explanations of the universe.

Science, and the philosophers dependent upon it, are not too different from that ranger acting of his own accord. Were quite ignorant, quick to acceptance with token symbolic skepticism. If we can coherently explain our blunders, and teach others to acceot it with Occam ease, then we feel to be wise, great theorists and searchers of the truth.

I am afraid its much, much, much more difficult than that. The fact we must refer to this tooic via a dead language shows its seated antiquity and how weak its original logic was. Why should this still be with us after all this time, after this manychanges to society, civilization, and concepts of physics? Why is it immune to this, but so much else is perishable? What is going on here situationally? Sua Sponte..... We are of our own accords on this one. Because we are, it exists. We can measure the steps and sequence of the universe quite logically back to a hilarious, illogical beginnings. Its all a farce, they change their minds on it every other year. The most complex thing our physicists teach us now adays is the negation of things! Why learn about something tangible and testible when we can focus on dark matter, anti matter, and black holes? And as I noted before.... The metrics are quite logical, were recording something replicable, and technics result, but this addiction science took into mysticism in trying to break out of its own rut is laughable. It underlines the inherent backwardness of our science, our mathematics conceptually and in generative formulations, and causes us to assert our own projections and psychological cunning as well as limiratiins to fill the cracks. Sua Sponte, we are the cause of the cause unto itself, unto others! It was always a reflection of ourselves.

We were discussing the rudiments of existence itself as t pertains to Science and thought. You seem to be making a lot of noise concerning a social philosophy about emm.. the noise of beliefs and self determination (Sua Sponte), I guess.

Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic HarmonyElseFrom THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Gain is obtained by giving a lot and keeping a little.Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is"..

apaosha wrote:What would existence, the universe, reality be interacting with? My point is that interaction is one of the prerequisites of existence.... not that existence interacts with, what? Non-existence?

This ties in with what I've been saying in the Free Will thread; the actor/act dichotomy. In this case you look at my post and you think that existence = interaction means that I am saying that existence is interacting with something. This is not the case, I assure you.

What I am saying is that existence is the condition of interaction between phenomena such that they affect and are affected by each other and so change. And that the ongoing manifestation of this interaction, constantly mutable, constantly changing is referred to as time. Movement in time is a prerequisite for existence.

This is interesting of itself, because none of this follows. All that is required for existence is that it is. It requires no interaction, because as you seem to imply, there's nothing for it to interact with. All you would seem to be saying is that existence affects existence, which is nothing short of a tautology of existence affects itself, which would be causa sui! And your idea of movement in time is extremely questionable. For movement requires going from A to B, but B can't be occupied for A to move to it. And this would mean that there's something else which isn't existence, and existence would have to interact with non-existence. And, if we accept current ideas of time within Einstein's theory, there is no movement, which is just a "persistent illusion". There's no change, because it's all static, and where something is static there is no movement. There's nothing to move to.

apaosha wrote:I wonder whether I am to take Minkowski's 4-dimensional spacetime and these guy's understanding of it separately, because this is nothing more than a dismissal of time as a measure of change by combining the sum of this change and referring to it as spacetime. It's still change, there is still interaction, there is still a distinct difference between conditions "then" as opposed to "now" or the future.

Wordplay, and from the quotes logically inconsistent. If a particle's "world line" represents the sum of its history in past, present and future then there is the tacit admission that change is in fact occurring. However, conflation of the particles entire history into one, as "spacetime", somehow allows this change to be considered non-change... as "spacetime" allows one to view change itself as an absolute which is itself unchanging, which is a juvenile argument at best.

Am I coming close to your point here? Let's continue on.

All I can do in an attempt to understand the universe is to use what I perceive and from that perception to extrapolate into probabilities. I see interaction and consequently change. Nowhere do I see stasis or phenomena manifesting into or out of existence from/into nothing. The present is an ongoing manifestation of the past. I say ongoing because it is constantly moving and never becomes static in time. The present is forever fading into the future. The future is merely the as-yet unmanifested condition of the present.I am not saying that change is absolute but I am saying that it is more probable than stasis or an uncaused phenomenon. It is not a matter of either/or, it is a matter of likelihood based upon perception.

Nowhere am I dealing in absolutes.

The problem with you bringing up "now" is that there's no "now", which is just an illusion. There would only be "before" and "after". But they never interact with one another, because they're both logically distinct, one is A and the other is ~A. There's no interaction between them. So you bringing up there being a distinction between "then" and "now" actually indicates that there's no "interaction", which destroys your position to begin with movement in time. That's because A can't move to ~A. A can only occupy A, and A can never occupy ~A. But if it did occupy ~A then it would be ~A to begin with.

Second, there's no change in the world line. Would you say that this line is changes: ______________ ? Where's the change in that line? None, because it's static. You can think of bread. You have the loaf of bread, which never changes from being a loaf of bread. But this loaf can be sliced up into slices of bread. One slice is logically distinct from another and can't be that other.

Third, you say that you have to deal with perception, which is a good start. But this doesn't give you interaction. Show me the interaction between one billiard ball and another billiard ball? I'm sure you can see this is David Hume's argument on causality, which pretty much undermines your whole idea of interaction. But hey, you say you see "ongoing manifestation of past", but show me the past. Can you do that with perception? Nope, you can't. Heck, you can't even show the future with perception. So you haven't really supported your position with much. You can't point to the past, and you can't point to the future. You can't have a perception of the future and you can't have a perception of the past. So you see no "ongoing manifestation of the past".

And this statement of "likelihood based upon perception" is totally unfounded by perception. Perception shows no likelihood, and perception definitely doesn't show the "past" or the "future". And perception shows plenty of time "uncaused" things. That's what is so great about "uncaused" things. They allow you to create "caused" things. Like David Hume once said, "The efficacy of causes lie in the determination of the mind!" And this was a guy that was completely loyal to perception.

apaosha wrote:My meaning is that if a phenomenon does not participate in interactivity it cannot affect nor be affected by other phenomenon. It is, in effect, not there. I defined this non-interaction as non-existence as a consequence of defining existence as interactivity. I would be interested in evidence which details the nature of a non-interactive phenomenon, as it would seem to me that this is logically impossible.

This is all nice, but you haven't shown that interactivity is existence, besides you just, as you basically admitting, that's how you define it. But how you define it is just a convention based on the definition that you choose. But your definitions are not only contradicted by experience, they lead to contradictions of their own. In other words, your definitions lead to the logically impossible, and what you argue against you say is logically impossible. Thus, you're stuck between a rock and a hard place.

apaosha wrote:According to your quoted reference of '"spacetime" it does exist, in one amalgated whole containing past present, future and all that existed, exists or will exist.

Don't contradict yourself.

Right, according to what I quoted I would have contradicted myself if I held to that. But I never said that I held to it. I just pointed out Einstein's theory says that nothing changes.

apaosha wrote:My point here was in relation to a supposed "border" of reality, which one is obliged to posit if one does not accept reality as being infinite in extent. Therefore, if we take existence as being the condition of.... existence.... than a finite extent of existence would have non-existence as it's border. That is what is absurd, that one must invent a condition which is nowhere in evidence to satisfy the requirements of a spacially finite universe.

Interesting, because it seems like you're implying that there is a spatially infinite universe, but there is no evidence for this at all, at least not found in experience. So you would seem to have to at one point want to affirm perception for your position, but then at another moment want to affirm something that's beyond perception (i.e. spacially infinite universe). Now you definitely seem to be stuck in a contradiction.

apaosha wrote:Yes, as I have defined it above.

Excellent, because you can't say that non-interaction is absurd without implying that interaction is just as absurd. But you haven't really even shown that interaction is actually existent.

apaosha"']Again, my point was that a non-interacting phenomenon is nowhere in evidence as the condition of its non-interaction forbids its detection. That to be considered evident it would have to be possible to be perceived, ie capable of interaction which by definition it is not.

What you are in fact asserting is that evidence of absence is itself evidence, while I am using the term to refer to perceptibility.So, you are not addressing my point.[/quote]

Right, but as was previously pointed out above in this very post, you haven't even perceived any interaction and you can't even do that. So you're very own position is by definition undetectable. You can't detect the past to even say it exists, and this would carry with it that you can't even detect or experience interaction, which means that you can't hold to cause either. The problem is that you basically admitted that "non-interaction" phenomena aren't possibly observable. But if the contradiction isn't possibly observably, then it's contradiction isn't possibly observable, which is interaction. In fact, your very point seems to bare a loose resemblance to testability. Testability requires that A and ~A are possible to observe, but if ~A isn't possible to observe, then we can't even say that we've observed A. We can't tell the difference between A and ~A by perception.

[quote="apaosha wrote:Then kindly do me the favour of describing the beginning of the universe, either ex nihilo or causa sui, the end of the universe (something into nothing) and also the edge or border of the universe.

It would be nice if you could provide some evidence as well.

Oh I can easily describe the beginning of the universe. You have nothing but blackness, and all of a sudden an object shows up. In fact, this is perfectly imaginable, which shows it's possible for there to be no causation or interaction at all. But hey, you're the one that is saying that the universe is infinite, and so far you haven't presented any evidence besides the hand waving of saying "a finite universe is absurd". That's not really evidence, because you're position is just as absurd.

James S Saint wrote:Of course, Liz seems to have been pondering how it is that a physical thing can pop out of nothingness without a reason/cause. It can't. It doesn't. It hasn't. It won't. There is a reason behind everything except for the very First Reason which is that Reality is what we are talking about and Reality is Reality. There is no reasoning behind why reality is reality rather than non-reality any more than why two is two and not five.

"It is true, beCAUSE it is what true is." ≡ Causa Sui."It is the reason, beCAUSE it is what reason is." ≡ Causa Sui."It is whatever it is, beCAUSE it is whatever it is, is." ≡ Causa Sui."I am that I am." ≡ Causa Sui.

{also known as "True by Definition"}

In other words, cause isn't based on anything but a definition and isn't found in experience. If you really want to go with you saying it's "True by definition", then cause isn't based on experience. But someone can always come up with a different definition which contradicts your's, which means that a physical thing can pop out of nothingness without a cause or reason.

ZenKitty wrote:In other words, cause isn't based on anything but a definition

Wrong

ZenKitty wrote:and isn't found in experience.

Wrong

ZenKitty wrote:If you really want to go with you saying it's "True by definition", then cause isn't based on experience.

Wrong

ZenKitty wrote:But someone can always come up with a different definition which contradicts your's,

Sure

ZenKitty wrote: which means that a physical thing can pop out of nothingness without a cause or reason.

Wrong

Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic HarmonyElseFrom THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Gain is obtained by giving a lot and keeping a little.Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is"..

ZenKitty wrote:In other words, cause isn't based on anything but a definition

Wrong

Than show causation without relying on definitions.

Sure; refute my point without using words or pictures.

Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic HarmonyElseFrom THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Gain is obtained by giving a lot and keeping a little.Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is"..

ZenKitty wrote:In other words, cause isn't based on anything but a definition

James S. Saint wrote:Wrong

ZenKitty wrote:Than show causation without relying on definitions.

Sure;

James S. Saint wrote:refute my point without using words or pictures.

Hold on, you're the one that has to back up your case. You have yet to do that. So it's not up to me, since you were the one making all these claims. Do you plan on backing it up, or are you just going to rely on definitions, i.e. conventions of language?

In fact, I've asked you at least two other times on another thread to show it, but you've just kept ignoring my request.

Oh, and for of those who haven't thought about Causa Sui, it is actually kind of simple. For example, there are some that say "something can't come from nothing", and this is just based on a Causal principle that says, as Descartes uses himself, A cause must precontain the reality of its effect.

You can deny this idea of causality, but only at the price of denying that "something can't come from nothing", which means that you accept that something can come from nothing.

Rene Descartes

Now it is manifest by the natural light that there must be at least as much <reality> in the efficient and total cause as in the effect of that cause. For where, I ask, could the effect get its reality from, if not from the cause? And how could the cause give it to the effect unless it possessed it? It follows from this both that something cannot arise from nothing...

So for those of you don't know, James S. Saint holds to "something can't come from nothing". And this idea follows from what is actually the basis of Causa Sui. Talk about inconsistent. At one point they say that "something can't come from nothing", but at another point denies what is the very foundation of that idea, i.e. Causa Sui.

A is the cause and B is the effect. A, the cause, contains B, the effect. So the Cause contains the Effect. That's how, they think, that something can't come from nothing. Because if you have nothing and something comes from it, then the cause, being nothing, doesn't contain something in itself, which is impossible under that Causal principle.

ZenKitty wrote:In other words, cause isn't based on anything but a definition

James S. Saint wrote:Wrong

ZenKitty wrote:Than show causation without relying on definitions.

Sure;

James S. Saint wrote:refute my point without using words or pictures.

Hold on, you're the one that has to back up your case.

I just did.You seem to have missed it.{Big Surprise}

Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic HarmonyElseFrom THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Gain is obtained by giving a lot and keeping a little.Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is"..

You can deny this idea of causality, but only at the price of denying that "something can't come from nothing", which means that you accept that something can come from nothing.

Haha.. you might want to think about that effort at reasoning.

A) Precondition must exist.B) Denial of (A) demands that "something can't come from nothing". (Oh really? To me it says just the opposite)C) Thus denial of (A) demands that you accept that something CAN come from nothing.Emm.. If I accept that something CAN come from nothing then I have accepted that a precondition of existence must exist - something must exist in order to cause existence?

Descartes merely said that the cause must exist BEFORE the effect, "precontain".

Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic HarmonyElseFrom THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Gain is obtained by giving a lot and keeping a little.Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is"..

James S Saint wrote:I just did.You seem to have missed it.{Big Surprise}

Wait, you just did? Let's see you backing it up.

James S Saint wrote: Sure;refute my point without using words or pictures.

Oh, nice slight of hand. Now back it up and instead of this hand waving. That's not backing anything up. That's just reversing your burden.

No "slight of hand"...merely taking advantage of the blind. {and still blind it seems.}

Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic HarmonyElseFrom THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Gain is obtained by giving a lot and keeping a little.Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is"..

James S Saint wrote:A) Precondition must exist.B) Denial of (A) demands that "something can't come from nothing". (Oh really? To me it says just the opposite)C) Thus denial of (A) demands that you accept that something CAN come from nothing.Emm.. If I accept that something CAN come from nothing then I have accepted that a precondition of existence must exist - something must exist in order to cause existence?

Descartes merely said that the cause must exist BEFORE the effect, "precontain".

Uh oh, looks like James S Saint still hasn't learned how to use reason, or learn to read.

Descarte said that the effect is contained within the cause. This means that the effect exists in the cause, and that the effect doesn't hold anything else that isn't in the cause. The classic example is that you are the effect of your parents having sex, and you were already contained in your parents before you came about. In fact, this is what your world looks like if you hold to "something can't come from nothing".

Notice that little guy in the sperm, because that's James. He was already in their tucked like that before he was ever born from his mom's womb.

The point was that cause and effect both exist at the same time. You existed in the sperm before your mother gave birth to you, under the principle of causality that leads to the immediate inference of "something can't come from nothing". Descarte said that the Effect exists IN the Cause. The Cause doesn't exist BEFORE the effect, because the Effect exists at the same time as the Cause, just that it's IN the cause. Like something isn't in nothing, because something can't come nothing. That's why the immediate inference is that Something can't come from nothing.

Come, shape up and start to use some logic, guy.

Last edited by ZenKitty on Mon Feb 13, 2012 1:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

James S Saint wrote:No "slight of hand"...merely taking advantage of the blind. {and still blind it seems.}

Thank back up your assertion. You still haven't supported anything, and keep dodging. I mean, if what you say is true, then one would think you could show it. But you still haven't shown anything to back up what you've said. Come on, it shouldn't be hard for you to do it.

Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic HarmonyElseFrom THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Gain is obtained by giving a lot and keeping a little.Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is"..

Sure, based on your stance, it means you existed before you were born. That's your stance, after all.

A) that is NOT MY stance.B) that IS what "pre" means - "before"

So now I have to assume it was "contain" that you didn't understand.

You should perhaps consider that something can't be contained if it doesn't exist...right?

If B is to be "contained" in A, then B must exist.

So if an effect is to be contained within a cause, then said effect must exist within the cause....right?

Thus your statement of "the cause must precontain the effect" means that the effect must exist within the cause before (pre) the effect exists. So the effect exists before the effect exists.

And you say that I am the one who needs to use logic?

Or perhaps its the word "before" that you're having trouble with?

Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic HarmonyElseFrom THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Gain is obtained by giving a lot and keeping a little.Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is"..

Sure, based on your stance, it means you existed before you were born. That's your stance, after all.

A) that is NOT MY stance.B) that IS what "pre" means - "before"

No, it's your stance. You said, in another thread, that "Something can't come from nothing". And that stance is the immediate inference from the effect is contained in the cause.

James S Saint wrote:So now I have to assume it was "contain" that you didn't understand.

You should perhaps consider that something can't be contained if it doesn't exist...right?

If B is to be "contained" in A, then B must exist.

So if an effect is to be contained within a cause, then said effect must exist within the cause....right?

Thus your statement of "the cause must precontain the effect" means that the effect must exist within the cause before (pre) the effect exists. So the effect exists before the effect exists.

And you say that I am the one who needs to use logic?

Or perhaps its the word "before" that you're having trouble with?

The only problem is that you aren't using logic, or at least understand it. The effect exists, because the cause exists. The effect doesn't exist if the cause doesn't exist. In other words, if the cause exists then the effect exists. Or, if the effect doesn't exist, then the cause doesn't exist. This is the problem with your stance that "something can't come from nothing", since it relies on the effect already existing in the cause. In fact, you haven't even show anything about cause and effect existing at all, and we're still waiting for your to defend your position, instead of playing the doding game.

ZenKitty wrote:The only problem is that you aren't using logic, or at least understand it.

Oh really..

ZenKitty wrote:The effect exists, because the cause exists.

That depends.

ZenKitty wrote: The effect doesn't exist if the cause doesn't exist.

That depends.

ZenKitty wrote: In other words, if the cause exists then the effect exists.

Again, that depends.

ZenKitty wrote: Or, if the effect doesn't exist, then the cause doesn't exist.

Again, that depends.

ZenKitty wrote:This is the problem with your stance that "something can't come from nothing", since it relies on the effect already existing in the cause.

Huh? It DOESN'T depend on the effect already existing in the cause. That is Your thought and assertion, not mine.Seriously, you really need to stop imagining thoughts as coming from me when they are entirely yours.And it would help if you would take a little time to see the surety you have when you inject certainty into your assertions.

As to what those above are dependent upon;How are cause and effect distinguished? What is the difference in their concepts?

Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic HarmonyElseFrom THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Gain is obtained by giving a lot and keeping a little.Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is"..

A causa sui, as I understand it, is a 'cause' that has no cause. Most people accept the BB as a causa sui because it gives them a starting point for so many effects. But, again as I understand, a causa sui isn't concerned with effects--only with cause. A 'cause that has no cause' is a phrase that uses two different meanings for 'cause'--one implies that there are effects of a cause in order to make it a cause; the other implies that there was nothingness prior to the causa sui, but there was a singularity which, in a micro-second (for want of a better word,) became a cause that led to the creation of the Universe.

In my OP, I said that our science and our language demand cause and affect, or how causes result in effects. A cause, in order to be a cause, needs to have an affect on something and, therefore, effect that something. If you accept the cosmological, astronomical theory of the BB, which most people do, then it's a causa sui.

My question was meant to be, now that we know there's a great deal of unpredictability (at least on a quantum level) within the universe, can effects exist without an apparent cause?

This has absolutely nothing to do with who's responsible for 'proof' of point, since there haven't been any points so far made that have to do with the OP.

"Be what you would seem to be - or, if you'd like it put more simply - never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise."— Lewis Carroll

lizbethrose wrote:My question was meant to be, now that we know there's a great deal of unpredictability (at least on a quantum level) within the universe, can effects exist without an apparent cause?

No.Predictability has nothing at all to do with existence or effects.

Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic HarmonyElseFrom THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Gain is obtained by giving a lot and keeping a little.Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is"..